Talk:Sean Lien

Citations needed
First of all, the Chinese-language Wikipedia doesn't even mention he attended Harvard, so that is likely not true. His time at Columbia is mentioned but needs verification. Furthermore, did he really work at two major financial companies with a law degree? I find that unlikely, even though it is mentioned in the Chinese version (again, without a source).--111.249.192.187 (talk) 14:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a profile of Sean Lien in the Taiwanese newsmagazine Business Weekly nr 1372, dated 2014-03-03. – Kaihsu (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that there is a desperate effort on the part of Lien supporters to fill out his resume. After all, the man is in his mid-40s and has done very little.  It's not at all clear that he has ever had to even go to an office on a regular basis.  If, as he claims, he never was given permanent residency to the US, then he could not have been "employed" by two major financial companies, not that is in the normal sense of the word "employment."  More likely it was just a short-term arrangement, perhaps an internship, the kind of thing that is made available to the sons of the rich and powerful.  Also, the claims about his performance at Easy Card seem exaggerated.  The only evidence that he did well is a statement issued by the Taipei City government.  And, as for his own company, they make all their money from China, which has been trying to cultivate close connections to his family in order to make occupation of Taiwan easier.  Does anyone really believe this guy is a financial wizard?  Either he is a financial wizard, or China is throwing good deals his way in order that he will help them achieve their goal of conquering Taiwan.  Which seems more likely to be true?Linfengfei (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of those who do not read Chinese, the "profile" does not paint an altogether flattering portrait of him.ShunfaSu (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to use wiki for promotion of candidacy
Kai010101 seems to be using this article to promote Lien's campaign. Removes negative aspects or recasts them so to make Lien appear innocent. Should adopt a neutral point of view. Kai010101 also cites multiple dubious sources.Linfengfei (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an example of dubious sources: Kai010101 keeps reverting edits. He repeatedly reverts to, "In 2008, Taipei City Mayor Hau Lung-pin appointed Lien as chairman of Taipei Smart Card Corporation. Under Lien, EasyCard Corporation went from a company in the red (losing NT$200 million at the beginning of his term) to a profitable firm in the black (the company reported earnings of NT$100 million in 2009). The mayor thanked him for turning the company around." This was a release by the Taipei City government, in other words, by Hau Lung-pin, the person who appointed him, and who is one of his political allies.Linfengfei (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Kai010101 continues to either remove negative aspects or recast them so to place Lien in favorable light. Strive for impartiality. I will do the same. If you wish to revise, please bring your revisions here for discussion. Please cease the automatic reverts. Thank you.Linfengfei (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * while it is inappropriate to use Wikipedia to promote a candidacy, it is also EQUALLY if not worse inappropriate to use Wikipedia article to smear a living person. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  01:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Thank you. Is this version, incorporation of the issues into the other parts of the article, acceptable?Linfengfei (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I have tried to modify and simplify presentation such that there can be no question of "smearing." Kai010101 continues to refuse all offers to discuss. She, he, or they, instead, continue to claim that her, him, or their claims are based in fact, or reliable sources, while anything negative is non-factual or unreliable.

1. It is not a fact that "under Lien, Taipei Smart Card Corporation was reinvented as EasyCard Corporation, and went from a company in the red (losing NT$200 million at the beginning of his term) to a profitable firm in the black (the company reported earnings of NT$100 million in 2009)." This is a claim issued by his employer, a claim that has been disputed in mainstream media (see previous edits). Since there is no way of proving the claim or the counter-claim, I have removed it, and not made any mention of the counter claims--despite the fact that they have been widely reported in the mainstream media.

2. All claims about his experiences are drawn from two sources:  "Bloomberg Business Week, Executive Profile" and the "Eisenhower Fellowships" homepage. I do not know for a fact, but I guess that those are both based upon self-reporting. Since I am not competent to say with certainty how BBW or EF collect such information, I have left those untouched. Only the info as reported on those two sites is left in the wiki article. I have only removed embellishments, and added nothing negative about these claims, despite the fact that negative counter-claims have been reported in the mainstream media.

3. Many well-documented claims, widely reported in the mainstream media, such as his failure to serve in the armed forces of the Republic of China, an obligation in our country--despite being extremely well-documents--are omitted. I have omitted them in order to avoid even the appearance of "smearing."

4. I have tried to keep the entirety to spare prose so that it is fair to Lien, while neither aiding supporters or detractors.Linfengfei (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Defamation claim as appeal for pity and red herring
To the reader: please give this article a fair reading and identify any examples of defamation. If you are able to do so, I would be grateful and make any appropriate changes.

Also, please, if it is not too much trouble, review the editing history. I cannot in good conscience claim that all of my edits have been fair, but I think it to be the case that any fair-minded reader would see that the contentious issues have been raised repeatedly by the person or group referred to as Kai010101. Regardless, I have tried to shepherd its evolution into a fair, impartial article.

In order to settle the dispute and be maximally fair to Lien I have used only spare prose and only written what is non-contentious, even allowing for resume info that might be suspect.Linfengfei (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To the person or group of persons who refer to self/selves as Kai010101
Please discuss contentious issues in the Talk section before making any more edits. Thank you.Linfengfei (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Reappearance of Kai010101 two days before the election no surprise. Lien could have clarified place of birth, prior education, actual work performance, type of employment, etc. many times. Never did. So article can only say little. Odd that Lien claims so much business experience but seems to have no money. Not really business expert? Pay no taxes? Ever go to Harvard? Ever get job on own? Actual contribution to EasyCard? Where born? Who knows? Leave article as neutral not promotional.Taiwansov (talk) 05:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Kai010101: Before long version of article given. Good and bad. You only want to see good. To avoid problem, article now only a few simple reports about Lien. If you don't agree to balance, pro and con, this is best that can be done. No mention that Lien's work history is a mystery, that he did not serve in army, that he worked for city government for only short time, that the shooting involved KMT-related gangsters, that he has close ties to China, that his family profited from its pol connections in Taiwan, that he claimed to go to Harvard....so what do you want? He is a middle-aged man who hasn't done much. So resume thin.Taiwansov (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Responding to libel: Linfengfei's smear tactics
Linfengfei appears to be on a mission to smear Lien. He minimizes Lien’s accomplishments and, whenever possible, quotes biased media sources that have a clear political agenda in an effort to spin Lien’s success into controversy. This is libel, and should not be tolerated on any level.

Example 1: Lien succeeds in saving the failing EasyCard Corporation. It is a FACT that the company was losing money when he started and then achieved profitability under his leadership. This is widely attributed to Lien’s efforts to integrate the payment method into convenience stores and other retail locations, broadening the functionality of the card and thus encouraging a broader adoption. Linfengfei apparently resents Lien’s success and even questions the validity of Lien’s justification for resigning for health reasons, willfully disregarding the fact Lien underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor at the end of 2009.

Example 2: Lien earns prestigious Eisenhower Fellowship. Linfengfei references opposition media pundits who slammed Lien for shirking his obligations at Easycard. This attack is not only disrespectful but erroneous, as his participation in the fellowship clearly did not compromise his ability to lead the company (see example 1). With regard to the Fellowship, it is reasonable to assume that an unbiased individual would be proud that their fellow countryman was selected for such an honor. Instead, Linfengfei has sought to minimize this accomplishment by instead highlighting attacks made by political rivals.

Example 3: The shooting incident. Regarding the event in which Lien was shot in the face at close range, the medical community unanimously agrees that the injuries Lien suffered were very serious and that it is a miracle he survived. It is absurd to call any gunshot wound to the face “minor.” The fact that certain individuals, including Linfengfei, would like to politicize this incident is absolutely despicable.

These examples, both collectively and individually, illustrate the willful and disdainful tactics Linfengfei has employed to smear Lien. To attack an individual who has overcome both cancer and an assassination attempt, and who succeeded in reviving a failing (but now hugely successful) next-gen payment infrastructure, is not only appalling but unethical. There is no place for this type of libelous and contentious material on Wikipedia. I strongly urge Wikipedia’s moderators to step in and mediate, so as to preserve the site’s integrity and prevent further defamation of a living public figure.

On hyperbole, allegations of smearing, the concept of fact, etc.

 * 1. The etiquette is to first discuss on the Talk page, make a sincere attempt to achieve consensus, and then consider edits to the article, especially in cases of dispute, as we have here. Responses below.

Linfengfei appears to be on a mission to smear Lien. He minimizes Lien’s accomplishments and, whenever possible, quotes biased media sources that have a clear political agenda in an effort to spin Lien’s success into controversy. This is libel, and should not be tolerated on any level.


 * The problem here is that any criticism you dismiss as biased and motivated by a political agenda. All favorable comments you treat as unbiased and as unmotivated by a political agenda. The attempt should be to seek balance.***

Example 1: Lien succeeds in saving the failing EasyCard Corporation. It is a FACT that the company was losing money when he started and then achieved profitability under his leadership.


 * Forgive me, but you seem to be unable to distinguish fact from claim. It is indeed a claim that has been put forward.  It is also a claim that has been denied by several sources.  Facts of the matter are not the same as claims.***

This is widely attributed to Lien’s efforts to integrate the payment method into convenience stores and other retail locations, broadening the functionality of the card and thus encouraging a broader adoption.


 * What is the basis for the "widely attributed" claim? Assertion is not the same as verification. Arguably it has been more widely claimed that his performance was poor and irresponsible.***

Linfengfei apparently resents Lien’s success and even questions the validity of Lien’s justification for resigning for health reasons, willfully disregarding the fact Lien underwent surgery to remove a cancerous tumor at the end of 2009.


 * Based upon what do you accuse me of resenting "Lien's success and even (questioning) the validity of Lien's justification for resigning for health reasons"?***

Example 2: Lien earns prestigious Eisenhower Fellowship.


 * I referenced the link to the Eisenhower Fellowship, as well as the wiki page, so that readers could judge the degree of prestige associated with this fellowship for themselves.***

Linfengfei references opposition media pundits who slammed Lien for shirking his obligations at Easycard.


 * He is a politician: some people like him and some people don't, both within and outside of his own party. Again, this comes to the basic problem--anything favorable you regard as factual, while anything unfavorable you attribute to spitefulness and political motivation.***

This attack is not only disrespectful but erroneous, as his participation in the fellowship clearly did not compromise his ability to lead the company (see example 1).


 * Adding the adverb "clearly" does not help your case. The issue is contentious and you have provided no new verification.***

With regard to the Fellowship, it is reasonable to assume that an unbiased individual would be proud that their fellow countryman was selected for such an honor. Instead, Linfengfei has sought to minimize this accomplishment by instead highlighting attacks made by political rivals.


 * I am happy for anyone who succeeds due to their own efforts and diligence. But still all you can offer is that anything negative is solely due to political motivation and has no basis in fact.***

Example 3: The shooting incident. Regarding the event in which Lien was shot in the face at close range, the medical community unanimously agrees that the injuries Lien suffered were very serious


 * It is not true that the "medical community unanimously agree(s) that the injuries Lien suffered were very serious." Quite the contrary, they were amazed that the injuries were so minor--no damage to the brain, the teeth, the tongue, the visual system, the auditory system, the nasal system, etc., and recovery was remarkably quick.  We are all happy that his injuries were minor and that he recovered quickly.***

and that it is a miracle he survived.


 * The "miracle" claim is the claim that anyone shot in the face should have been seriously injured, but he was not.***

It is absurd to call any gunshot wound to the face “minor.”


 * The drama of gunshot to the face is one thing; the nature of the wound is something else. Again you confuse the two.***

The fact that certain individuals, including Linfengfei, would like to politicize this incident is absolutely despicable.


 * I am sorry that you apparently feel compelled to enhance Lien's credentials by distorting what I wrote.***

These examples, both collectively and individually, illustrate the willful and disdainful tactics Linfengfei has employed to smear Lien.


 * You did not refer to any instances of "smearing".***

To attack an individual who has overcome both cancer


 * I am happy for anyone who overcomes disease. Here you are just making an appeal to pity and you are distorting what I wrote.***

and an assassination attempt,


 * Whether it was an "assassination attempt" is yet another contentious claim, one not supported by judicial findings.***

and who succeeded in reviving a failing (but now hugely successful) next-gen payment infrastructure


 * Again you are just repeating a contentious claim.***

is not only appalling but unethical.


 * People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.***

There is no place for this type of libelous and contentious material on Wikipedia. I strongly urge Wikipedia’s moderators to step in and mediate, so as to preserve the site’s integrity and prevent further defamation of a living public figure.


 * I welcome a serious, balanced analysis by experienced and impartial editors. To those who would do so, I respectfully ask that you examine the good and the bad.  I have already edited out many serious concerns about Lien as a person, both his performance in recent years and his performance in his youth, items that a serious article should include.  I leave it to experienced editors to determine which sources are more reliable, although I believe this is best left to editors who read Chinese.  But, for the record, media claims that I have already omitted include:  failure to serve in what for most of us was compulsory military service, an "extravagant" (this is a euphemism) lifestyle while living in New York, extremely close ties to Chinese Communist political leaders, misuse of funds while employed by the city government, taking credit for improvements that were in place before he assumed a leadership role, financially benefiting from improper investments, etc.  Precisely because the claims are contentious--as are those claims about his positive contributions--I revised the article to simple, spare prose, citing only the non-contentious.  It strikes me that this is already being extremely fair to Lien.  But I leave this for senior editors to determine.***Linfengfei (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

"Neutral" does not mean "favorable."
You have repeatedly demonstrated that you are the arbiter of "neutral" and that "neutral" means "favorable." I have never claimed that any of the reports are of good quality. That is a problem we live with everyday here. If you wish to add these positive claims, then we should also add the negative ones, as is done on the Chinese wiki,

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%80%A3%E5%8B%9D%E6%96%87

So unless you are willing to accept the bad with the good, please stop reversing edits.

Your candidate has nearly infinite resources at his disposal for publicizing himself. There is no need for you to hijack wikipedia.Linfengfei (talk) 03:39, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Birthplace controversy
My edits saved before I could fully submit an edit summary, so here is my reasoning. I have read the info at the old source. It is a Taipei Times opinion article that tried to smear Kuomintang-affiliated politicians as being too connected with the United States. I consider the China Post and China Times to be more reliable sources than some person's opinion and one-sided analysis, despite the China Times' pro-China slant. I included both references because I saw there was controversy about this very statement before I edited the article. Vycl1994 (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for kindly responding. 1. On place of birth:  First, more than one source claims that Lien was born in the US, and at least one of those is from a decade ago, before Lien decided to enter politics. Second, your opinion of which media outlet is more prone to smearing is not relevant. Third, my guess (only a guess) is that if Lien either was born in Taiwan or cared about this issue, he would have released a formal statement, perhaps something like, "although some media reports have alleged that I was born in the US, and although my father was a student in the US at approx that time, the fact is that I was born in Taiwan, and here is my birth certificate." This would then be carried by all media outlets and it would carry much weight. But Lien has never done this. Fourth, from some of what I've read there seems to be a confusion between where he "was born" and where he "grew up." (Mostly in the Chinese language media.) The issue here is where he "was born." It is that issue that has important legal implications. Fifth, let us be clear that according to the constitution of the Republic of China, place of birth is not relevant to whether a person can run for elected office. What matters is citizenship. Insofar as I am aware, no one has ever claimed that Lien holds dual citizenship. So, My recommendation is that you re-edit to something like, "Although some sources claim Sean Lien was born in the US, others claim that he was born in Taiwan. Lien has never publicly stated where he was born, nor has he ever presented a birth certificate." You then include citations for both. 2. On his relationship to Harvard:  this has been reported by some, previously, but it has never been made clear exactly what his relationship to Harvard was. Did he visit? Take a summer course there? What exactly? The problem of course is that by lumping this with the two schools that it seems certain he did attend, it gives the appearance that he received a degree or was in a degree program. And I guess (only a guess) that was not the case. Sean Lien could easily clarify this issue too, if he chose to do so.Taiwansov (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)